Why the Iceland Ad Shouldn't Have Been Banned

British supermarket Iceland is taking a stand against palm oil, but why won’t the media support its campaign?

by David Colebourn

Palm oil is an edible vegetable oil that is ubiquitous in processed food, mostly thanks to its ease and efficiency of production. It's estimated to be the most produced and consumed vegetable oil, totalling a whopping 30% of all plant oil output globally, but this mass ­production comes at a great cost. It takes only cursory research to discover that the production of palm oil on this scale is causing nothing short of devastation to rainforest biomes across the planet.

Though it can be produced sustainably, it's less profitable to do this than to clear new land with every harvest cycle. The impact is most severe in Indonesia and Malaysia, although the adaptability of the African oil palm tree (from which the oil is farmed) means that any hot and humid climate is vulnerable to the unsustainable practice of clearing 300 football fields' worth of forest every hour.

The impact on the habitat of rainforest species is huge. The UN notes that up to 5000 orangutans are killed annually in pursuit of land for palm oil plantations. They have declared a “conservation emergency” with regards to this species, in light of the prediction that orangutans could be forced into extinction within just five years.

To this end, one UK supermarket is making a stand. The Wales­-based frozen food specialist Iceland recently produced a 90­second advert for their newly launched range of palm oil free own ­brand products. It can be found here, and features a baby orangutan, Rang­tan, who has chosen to live in a child’s bedroom. Although the child is initially frustrated, she later learns that he was forced to flee his home because of deforestation, and pledges to spread Rang­tan’s story “far and wide” in order to curb the loss of his natural habitat.

As a piece of persuasive broadcasting, the advert is very well put together. I particularly appreciate the direct and level comparison between animals and humans appropriating each others’ living spaces. Appropriate graphics and music, in addition to a feasible strategy for combating environmental damage, give the advert considerable gravity without overwhelming its audience. Truth be told, I think it's excellent.

Iceland had hoped to air the advert on television, specifically to rival the famous annual Christmas advert aired by John

Lewis. However, it wasn't approved by the UK’s broadcasting watchdog, Clearcast, who checked the advert against the UK code of Broadcast Advertising (BCAP Code). It's uncommon to see an advert banned from television in the UK, particularly for a company of Iceland’s size. One of the strengths of the UK’s press and media is that it's very loosely regulated by the government, allowing bodies in the media to scrutinise almost whatever takes their choosing. Though this has left a fair amount of space for wealthy media outlets to influence the views of the population as they see fit, an upside is that it's rare for media of this type to be banned. And yet the advert has been rejected by Clearcast on “political grounds”. Why is this?

Clause 7 of the BCAP code says an advert can 'contravene the prohibition on political advertising if it is:

a. an advertisement which is inserted by or on behalf of a body whose objects are wholly or mainly of a political nature; b. an advertisement which is directed towards a political end; or c. an advertisement which has a connection with an industrial dispute.'

Most news reporting has cited this clause as the reason for the advert’s rejection, but it's not immediately obvious why there might be political motivation behind it – I certainly was unable to find anything after watching it a few times. The advert does little more than motivate consumers to shop at Iceland to reduce damage to rainforests, so what’s the problem?

Enter Greenpeace. It turns out that to create the advert, Iceland struck a deal allowing them to rebrand a Greenpeace advertisement dissuading viewers from buying palm oil. Greenpeace has a notorious ­ no, a fantastic reputation ­ for lobbying government bodies around the globe, and so in the hands of Greenpeace, I could support Clearcast’s decision not to clear the advert on the grounds of Clause 7a.

In my view, the circumstances change completely when the same advert is submitted by Iceland. Though Clause 7a could be reasonably invoked for Greenpeace, Iceland has never had any interest in political campaigning, and is clearly only trying to do good in the world by spreading information about the degradation of rainforests.

It's a valid argument that Greenpeace could simply be using Iceland as a vehicle to get their advertisement onto television screens, but consider this: what is the Iceland advert asking consumers to do? It doesn't criticise or even reference any government or their policies, nor does it attempt to mobilise the population in demanding radical change. The entire point of the Iceland advert is to encourage people to shop at

Iceland! This is hardly a political activity.

Further, how much of the population would have known that the Iceland advertisement was originally produced by Greenpeace, had it not been flagged by the media due to its rejection? It's been reported that Clearcast invoked Clause 7 in the knowledge that the advert originally belonged to Greenpeace, but without this knowledge, would they still have had concerns? I think not, and neither would those watching. It is (now) a supermarket advert, after all.

To me, the fact that this knowledge alone has the power to change the outcome points to insufficient subtlety in the BCAP code. At the end of the day, there's nothing political about a private company choosing to help tackle deforestation, and I staunchly believe that the BCAP code has failed to identify this.

There’s one more thing I want to highlight here on the broader topic of media coverage of environmental concerns. In short, where’s all the news about it? It's my opinion that the public and the media have formed an echo chamber of sorts, where the public’s interest in certain areas of government policy and certain types of community events encourages the media to print stories about these kinds of activity, refuelling the public’s enthusiasm for them. Since more popular stories make more money, the media generally has no particular interest in breaking this cycle.

Unfortunately, environmental concerns are very much outside the cycle of affairs that regularly appear in the news, particularly on the front pages of newspapers and at the beginning of news bulletins on television. I could go on, but my point is this. The media had a real opportunity last month to break this cycle and get the public truly concerned about the state of the worlds’ rainforests, but instead, the advert was banned from television. If you could call a broadcasting decision ‘unsustainable’, this would top my list. Moreover, news coverage of the rejection was dry, containing nothing that might hint that actually, Iceland’s advert carries an incredibly important message. I am very disappointed.

Whether all this has angered you or not, there are a number of things you can do to make a difference, relating to both the advert itself and the abandonment of unsustainable palm oil production in general. Firstly, though I have my reservations about the current consumer­driven market model, you can use it to your advantage here; there are few better ways to support Iceland’s campaign than by purchasing from their palm­ oil free range! At the time of writing, Iceland is offering 178 palm ­oil free alternatives to their regular brands of frozen vegetables, ready meals, and much more – it’s well worth a look.

Alternatively, it takes just 30 seconds to share Iceland’s advert on social media to spread its impact. If everyone reading this article shared the advert, I naively estimate that we could reach another five thousand people with Iceland’s campaign! I urge you to do it, for one simple reason. If there is demand for a service or product, no matter how immoral the production processes or conditions may be, someone will provide it.

Consequently, though it's abhorrent that more legislation and restrictions aren't being put in place to curb palm oil production, a surprising amount of responsibility lies with us as consumers to boycott this ingredient. Iceland has provided us with a simple way to remove palm oil from the food we eat, but if you prefer another supermarket, then it takes just a few seconds to check the ingredients list on the products you buy. The orangutans, and the rainforests in which they live, will thank you. SM